Clemson UniversityTigerPrints
Publications Eugene T. Moore School of Education
4-2017
Integrating Multimodal Arguments Into HighSchool Writing InstructionEmily HowellIowa State University
Tracy ButlerAnderson University
David ReinkingClemson University, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/eugene_pubs
Part of the Education Commons
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Eugene T. Moore School of Education at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion inPublications by an authorized administrator of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact [email protected].
Recommended CitationHowell, E., Butler, T., & Reinking, D. (2017). Integrating multimodal arguments into high school writing instruction. Journal ofLiteracy Research, 49, 181-209.
For Peer Review
Integrating Multimodal Arguments into High-School Writing
Instruction
Journal: Journal of Literacy Research
Manuscript ID 16-03-0043.R3
Manuscript Type: Original Article
Keywords: Adolescent literacy, Formative design experiment, Multimodal/media literacies, Writing, Technology
Abstract:
We conducted a formative experiment investigating how an intervention that engaged students in constructing multimodal arguments could be integrated into high-school English instruction to improve students’ argumentative writing. The intervention entailed three essential components: (a) construction of arguments defined as claims, evidence,
and warrants; (b) digital tools that enabled the construction of multimodal arguments; and (c) a process approach to writing. The intervention was implemented for 11 weeks in high-school English classrooms. Data included classroom observations; interviews with the teacher, students, and administrators; student reflections; and the products students created. These data, analyzed using grounded-theory coding and constant-comparison analysis, informed iterative modifications of the intervention. A retrospective analysis led to several assertions contributing to an emerging pedagogical theory that may guide efforts to promote high-school students’ ability to construct arguments using digital tools. Keywords: argument, multimodal, multiliteracies, formative experiment
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jlr
Journal of Literacy Research
For Peer Review
INTEGRATING MULTIMODAL 1
Integrating Multimodal Arguments into High-School Writing Instruction
Professional organizations such as the International Literacy Association (formerly the
International Reading Association [IRA], 2009) and the National Council of Teachers of English
(NCTE, 2005, 2008) have published position statements emphasizing literacy educators’
responsibility to prepare their students for literacy in the 21st century. However, those calls
conflict with data indicating literacy teachers rate the importance of integrating various digital
tools and activities into their teaching well above their reported level of use (Hutchison &
Reinking, 2010, 2011). Literacy teachers also view integration of digital literacy into their
teaching in technological, rather than curricular, terms. That is, they define integration simply as
using digital technologies to serve conventional instructional goals rather than engaging students
with new genres of reading and writing, such as blogs and wikis (Hutchison & Reinking, 2011).
That conclusion holds in studies conducted in the U.S., but also in other countries (e.g., Canada;
see Peterson & McClay, 2012; South Korea; see Pang, Reinking, Hutchison & Ramey, 2015).
Although there is an extensive literature aimed at understanding and contextualizing the
changes in literacy that are occurring and why it is important that educators respond to those
changes (e.g., Coiro, Knobel, Lankshear, & Leu, 2008; Jewitt & Kress, 2010; Kress, 2003), what
is lacking, and what the present investigation aimed to address, is research investigating how
instructional activities aimed at developing 21st century literacy skills might be successfully and
authentically integrated into conventional instruction (Graham & Benson, 2010; see also
Pressley, Graham, & Harris, 2006).
We conducted a formative experiment investigating how an intervention aimed at
developing high-school students’ ability to construct multimodal arguments using digital tools
might be integrated into conventional writing instruction. Specifically, we explored how a
multiliteracies perspective promoted by the New London Group (NLG, 1996) could be
Page 1 of 49
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jlr
Journal of Literacy Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
INTEGRATING MULTIMODAL 2
instantiated through instruction aimed at enhancing students’ ability to construct conventional
and multimodal arguments using online digital tools. We wanted to learn what pedagogical
understandings would emerge from our collaboration with a teacher to design a workable
intervention, thus generating what Gravemeijer and Cobb (2006) refer to as local theories
grounded in, and authentically informing, practice.
Theoretical Perspectives
The NLG (1996) advocated expanding the concept of literacy to encompass what they
called multiliteracies. Multiliteracies included traditional text-based forms of communication,
but also accommodated an increasingly globalized, diversified, and technological world that
afforded new forms of text students need to both understand and create. This perspective defined
texts as multimodal constructions that could include linguistic, audio, spatial, gestural, and visual
modes. These modes are organized semiotic resources used to make meaning. NLG scholars
such as Kress (2003, 2010; Bezemer & Kress, 2008; Jewitt & Kress, 2010), positioning their
perspective within social semiotics, have argued that digital communication provides more
modes and therefore more options for expressing meaning. Thus, competent construction of
multimodal texts is necessary for equitable participation in an increasingly diverse,
interconnected world.
However, a conventional view of literacy, based on printed texts, inherently excludes
dimensions of multimodality (Dyson, 2003). Further, teachers may not have adequate
preparation (Ajayi, 2009) to integrate multimodality into their instruction, especially when they
have little explicit guidance about how to achieve such integration (Graham & Benson, 2010;
Sewell & Denton, 2011). Teachers may also perceive such integration to be incompatible with
prescriptive demands placed upon their work, such as conforming to standards or to a test-centric
Page 2 of 49
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jlr
Journal of Literacy Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
INTEGRATING MULTIMODAL 3
school culture (Siegel, 2012). Miller (2013) concluded the field “urgently needs” (p. 24) further
research on how teachers integrate multimodal communication into their instruction. Yet,
teachers must integrate digital tools and multimodality without neglecting conventional skills
assessed on standardized tests (Siegel, 2012). Thus, teachers need more explicit pedagogical
understandings and guidance to scaffold the integration of multimodal forms of reading and
writing in everyday instruction (Mills, 2010).
Constructing Arguments as a Pedagogical Goal
Constructing conventional written arguments is a standard topic in the curricular
standards guiding high-school writing classes because it is essential for critical thinking and
academic success (Hillocks, 2011). Some states assess teachers’ ability to construct arguments
to achieve certification (Harris, 2014). Constructing arguments is also viewed as an element of
active and effective citizenship (Hillocks, 2011; Smith, Wilhelm, & Fredricksen, 2012).
Yet, teaching students to construct effective conventional written arguments has been
identified as an instructional challenge. For example, Hillocks (2010) suggested that
argumentative writing requires complex logical reasoning beyond persuasive writing. Newell,
Beach, Smith, and VanDerHeide (2011) found that teaching argumentative writing is challenging
because (a) teaching argument is complex, (b) students rarely have an audience beyond a teacher,
(c) argument does not lend itself to formulaic approaches, and (d) teachers may lack experience
in dealing with its complexity. Further, Applebee and Langer (2013) documented that only 19%
of writing teachers’ assignments extended beyond a paragraph.
There have been repeated calls to expand argumentative writing to include digital forms
of communication (Andrews, 1997; Birdsell & Groarke, 2004; Hocks, 2003; Howard, 2011).
Capable citizenship includes constructing and evaluating arguments with digital tools (e.g.,
Page 3 of 49
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jlr
Journal of Literacy Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
INTEGRATING MULTIMODAL 4
Jewitt & Kress, 2010; Kress 2000). Adolescents’ lives in contemporary society are also
increasingly digital and multimodal outside of school (Alvermann, 2008; Lenhart, Arafeh, Smith,
& Macgill, 2008).
There is evidence that teachers are not responding adequately to these developments. For
example, in a national study of 2,462 Advanced Placement and National Writing Project teachers
who worked with middle- and high-school students, Purcell, Heaps, Buchanan, and Friedrich
(2013) found that 95% of the teachers reported having students do research online. However,
comparatively few engaged students in developing and posting their work on a website, wiki, or
blog (40%). Teachers used the Internet as a source for students to obtain information, but less as
a means for constructing and disseminating student writing.
However, integrating digital forms of communication into curriculum and instruction,
which often means using technologies in new ways, requires thoughtful planning and represents
pedagogical challenges. Specifically, there is a tension between the possibility of multimodal
composing and what actually is applied in classrooms, as teachers try to integrate digital genres
into their practice (Bowen & Whithaus, 2013; Graham & Benson, 2010). A fundamental
challenge is that practitioners cannot simply abandon conventional approaches to writing, even if
so inclined (e.g., NLG, 1996; Jenkins, Clinton, Purushotma, Robison, & Weigel, 2006). Instead,
students need explicit instruction that connects composition in conventional and digital forms,
and teachers need guidance on how to do so (see Bowen & Whithaus, 2013; Matthewman,
Blight, & Davies, 2004). For example, Rowsell and Decoste (2012) conducted a two-year
ethnographic study within their eleventh-grade English class finding that students did not
inherently connect various modes of digital expression with conventional writing. They
concluded that the affordances and uses of multimodal forms of expression need to be taught
Page 4 of 49
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jlr
Journal of Literacy Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
INTEGRATING MULTIMODAL 5
explicitly. Further, McDermott and Hand (2013) argued that students need to understand how
different modes work together coherently and effectively. Argument in digital texts must be
more than a sequence of statements comprising an Aristotelian syllogism. Instead, as Andrews
(1997) noted, “it is the deploying of verbal, visual, and physical ‘moves’ to negotiate a new
position or defend an existing one…” (p. 267).
Given these perspectives, the purpose of this study was to investigate how an intervention
aimed at addressing these shortcomings and challenges might be successfully integrated into
high-school writing instruction toward the goal of improving students’ argumentative writing.
Our focus was on developing students’ ability to construct multimodal arguments using digital
tools. However, we were also interested in whether engaging them in constructing multimodal
arguments might improve their writing of more conventional arguments.
The Intervention and Its Justification
In a formative experiment, the intervention is defined by its essential components.
Although these components can be implemented and adapted in infinite ways, they are the
constants that identify an intervention as a distinct pedagogical entity (Reinking, Colwell, &
Ramey, 2013). Fidelity in a formative experiment is not an inflexible implementation of
instruction, but instead the expectation that all of an intervention’s essential components are
integral to instruction (Reinking & Bradley, 2008). The essential components of the present
intervention are: (a) construction of arguments defined as claims, evidence, and warrants; (b)
digital tools that enable the construction of multimodal arguments; and (c) a process approach to
writing. Subsequently here, we justify each of these components as comprising an intervention
with potential to achieve our pedagogical goal.
Page 5 of 49
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jlr
Journal of Literacy Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
INTEGRATING MULTIMODAL 6
Constructing Written Arguments
Toulmin (1958/2003) introduced a framework for developing conventional written
arguments in composition classes (Lunsford, 2002; Smith et al., 2012). That framework is a
familiar heuristic to writing teachers, although we have abbreviated it here to its fundamental
elements: claims, evidence, and warrant. Claims are assertions that must be proven in the
argument; evidence is given to support the claim; and warrants explain how the evidence
supports the claim (Toulmin, 1958/2003). We also responded to recent concerns that Toulmin’s
model has been conceived and implemented more from a cognitive than a social perspective.
Newell et al. (2011; see also Lunsford, 2002) argued that more research is needed on writing
arguments as a form of social practice. Incorporating a visual rhetoric into constructing
arguments is one way to move in that direction (see Birdsell & Groarke, 2004) as is broadly
considering how multimodal arguments might be constructed (see Demirbag & Gunel, 2014;
Whithaus, 2012), which leads to the intervention’s second essential component.
Multimodal Arguments Using Digital Tools
Constructing multimodal arguments is a specific application of multimodal composing,
defined by Bowen and Whithaus (2013) as, “the conscious manipulation of the interaction
among various sensory experiences-visual, textual, verbal, tactile, and aural-used in the
processes of producing and reading texts” (p. 7). This component instantiates a bridge between
the goals of constructing conventional written arguments and new goals grounded in the trend
that digital forms and genres are increasingly central to academic and civic writing (Andrews,
1997; Birdsell & Groarke, 2004; Hocks, 2003; Howard, 2011).
A central concept distinguishing conventional writing from constructing multimodal texts
is engagement in a conscious design perspective using the affordances of digital tools. Kress
Page 6 of 49
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jlr
Journal of Literacy Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
INTEGRATING MULTIMODAL 7
(2003) argued that students must be taught how to design textual communications across modes.
The integration of conventional and new forms of argument was addressed in this study as a
teacher implemented instruction that simultaneously addressed conventional components of
argument (claims, evidence, and warrant), yet extended instruction to include the design of
multimodal arguments using digital tools.
Two studies suggest that instructional models for creating multimodal arguments are
needed. Whithaus (2012) analyzed science reports using Toulmin’s model (1958/2003).
However, that model did not work well because, although claims were typically made
linguistically, evidence was often presented visually or numerically. He concluded a multimodal
model for analyzing argument was needed, because “such a model facilitates a more detailed,
even mathematical, consideration of argumentative patterns” (Whithaus, 2012, p. 106).
Demirbag and Gunel (2014) came to a similar conclusion in a quasi-experimental study in which
students receiving instruction in developing multimodal arguments outperformed a control group
in the quality of their arguments as well as content knowledge.
Other studies have demonstrated that multimodal composing may increase students’
engagement (Bruce, 2009; Jocius, 2013; Johnson & Smagorinsky, 2013; Vasudevan, Schultz, &
Bateman, 2010; Walsh, 2008). However, these studies have not provided specific insights into
how multiliteracies as a theoretical orientation translates into feasible and effective pedagogy.
Jocius (2013) argued that studies involving multimodal writing examine engagement and
meaning, but few document what and how academic learning occurs. In this study, the use of
digital tools to engage students in writing multimodal arguments responds to that gap in the
literature in a conventional instructional context.
Page 7 of 49
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jlr
Journal of Literacy Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
INTEGRATING MULTIMODAL 8
Process Writing
A process approach is a well-researched, longstanding, and widely used orientation to
writing instruction (Applebee & Langer, 2013; Hillocks, 1986). Most writing teachers are
familiar with and committed to that orientation (Graham & Sandmel, 2011). However, its
implementation has evolved over time. Pritchard and Honeycutt (2006) argued that the original
model, which was less effective, was more linear and did not include direct instruction. Thus, our
definition of a process approach to writing included the following: extended opportunities for
student writing; writing for authentic audiences; peer interaction; a recursive process of writing
including planning, drafting, and revising; and direct instruction in the form of conferencing or
mini lessons (Applebee & Langer, 2013; Graham & Perin, 2007b; Graham & Sandmel, 2011;
Hillocks, 1986). That definition has robust support in the literature for improving the quality of
students’ writing (e.g., Graham & Perin, 2007a, 2007b; Graham & Sandmel, 2011). Further, a
process approach aligns with the perspective of multiliteracies, which emphasizes writing as a
process of multimodal design (NLG, 1996). Finally, the process approach aims to provide
students strategies for recursive writing, rather than simply assigning the construction of a final
product (Applebee & Langer, 2013), which is consistent with research suggesting that students
need explicit guidance in bridging conventional and multimodal writing (Rowsell & Decoste,
2012).
Method
Formative experiments aim to determine how an intervention can be implemented in an
authentic instructional context to reach a valued pedagogical goal. Thus, the research question
guiding the present study was as follows: How can using digital tools within a process
orientation to writing be integrated into conventional instruction to help students construct
Page 8 of 49
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jlr
Journal of Literacy Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
INTEGRATING MULTIMODAL 9
effective multimodal and conventional arguments? Consistent with the literature on formative
experiments, we gathered data that informed iterative modifications of the intervention guided by
questions such as: What factors enhance or inhibit progress toward achieving the goal? How
can the intervention be modified in light of those factors? What unanticipated influences and
outcomes occur? Is the teaching and learning environment being transformed? (Reinking &
Bradley, 2008). A retrospective analysis of our data was conducted after the intervention to
formulate pedagogical assertions toward developing local, domain-specific theory to inform
future research and offer useful guidance to practitioners (Gravemeijer & Cobb, 2006).
Participants
We worked with Ms. Malone, a teacher of third-year English classes in Hampton High
School (all names are pseudonyms). Ms. Malone worked as a teacher consultant for the National
Writing Project (nwp.org), and we knew her previously in that context. She was in her seventh
year teaching English, all of which were at Hampton. When asked why she wanted to participate
in this research involving digital tools, multimodality, and arguments, she replied, “Technology
is a great way to get students invested in something. Some of them haven’t had much experience
in that.” On the other hand, by her own account and confirmed by our subsequent observations,
her use of technology could be characterized as more technological, than curricular, integration.
That is, she used digital tools such as word processing, PowerPoint slides, and the Internet for
researching topics, but she had not implemented new curricular goals aligned with 21st century
literacy skills, strategies, and dispositions. In that regard, she was representative of many
literacy teachers in the U.S. (see Hutchison & Reinking, 2011).
Ms. Malone was a well-respected teacher who lived in the community Hampton served.
She taught both Advanced Placement English and third-year college-preparatory classes in
Page 9 of 49
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jlr
Journal of Literacy Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
INTEGRATING MULTIMODAL 10
English. We observed her to be conscientious in her teaching, devoting considerable attention to
detailed planning and confident in her content knowledge. However, she lacked confidence in
her ability to integrate technology into her teaching, and we observed her becoming flustered by
technological glitches, mostly it seemed, because it disrupted her ability to implement her
carefully planned lessons. During one class period, in particular, she shared her feelings of
“vulnerability” and “embarrassment” in front of her students (and us) when she had difficulty
implementing a technology-based activity.
When we presented options for Ms. Malone to be involved in the research project, she
opted for a role consistent with what Cole and Knowles (1993) referred to as teacher
development partnership research where researchers and teachers collaborate closely but where
“[respective] strengths and available time commitments . . . are honored” (p. 486). We were
participant observers in her class (Glesne, 2011). However, to mitigate our influence on the
intervention, which is a frequently cited limitation of formative experiments (Reinking &
Bradley, 2008), we consciously resisted imposing our interpretations, pedagogical views,
solutions to pedagogical difficulties, and so forth. Instead, we deferred to her assessments,
judgment, decisions, interpretations, and opinions, because in a formative experiment, teachers’
reactions, including discomfort with instructional options are important data (Colwell, Hunt-
Barron, & Reinking, 2013). However, we offered suggestions and ideas if she solicited our
thoughts and advice.
Most of the students in the two classes in which we worked were in the eleventh grade,
although a few students were in tenth and twelfth grade. There were 26 students in one section
and 13 in the second section, approximately evenly divided in each class by gender. The data
presented here were collected in our work with both of these sections of an eleventh-grade
Page 10 of 49
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jlr
Journal of Literacy Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
INTEGRATING MULTIMODAL 11
English class.
Instructional Setting
Ms. Malone’s classes met every other day for 90 minutes. Ms. Malone had established a
sense of community with each class as demonstrated by the students’ freedom of expression and
their willingness to meet her expectations. Her students often collaborated with one another, but
they were also comfortable working independently as she gave students both the freedom and
responsibility to work towards the goals she set for them.
Hampton had 922 students serving a small town in a mostly rural area of a Southern state.
The state in which Hampton is located ranks schools with letter grades based on state tests and
graduation rates. Hampton received a grade of “B” the year prior to this study, indicating that
their progress exceeded state expectations. Nonetheless, the annual dropout rate of 4% was
higher than the median rate of high schools in the state. In an interview, an assistant principal
described the makeup of the student body as socio-economically polarized.
Technology was emphasized at the school, which had multiple technological resources
including a classroom set of iPads, two carts of Chromebooks (24 in each), two Dell laptop carts
(24 in each), 34 student computers in the library, secured wireless access for teachers, unsecured
wireless access for students, a computer for the teacher in each classroom, computer labs, and
SmartBoards in most classrooms. An assistant principal stated that writing good arguments was
a priority at the school, which was reinforced by another administrator during a separate
interview. Administrators stated that most English classrooms followed the Common Core State
Standards, although, because the school was transitioning to those standards, some still followed
state standards geared to an End of Course exam.
Page 11 of 49
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jlr
Journal of Literacy Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
INTEGRATING MULTIMODAL 12
Intervention
Prior to implementing the intervention, we met several times with Ms. Malone to discuss
the intervention’s essential components and to plan how they might be integrated into her
instruction. Again, our role was to follow her lead in determining how the first iteration of the
intervention could be integrated into her existing instructional frames and goals, logistical
routines and constraints, and so forth. For example, she decided to expand the elements of
argument to include counterargument.
However, Ms. Malone was also interested in our suggestions. For example, at our
suggestion, she decided to use digital tools in a unit where the students would each create a
website that would serve as a public service announcement (PSA) for a self-selected social
cause. The students would use this website to make a multimodal argument about their chosen
topic. Because all students in the school district had a Google email address and thus had access
to Google Applications, she agreed that it would be efficient to use Google Sites
(https://gsuite.google.com/products/sites/) as the medium for the students culminating project of
their PSA. She also adopted our suggestion to use Evernote (evernote.com) as a tool for taking
notes and recording references as students assembled evidence for their selected causes and then
established claims. Glogster EDU (edu.glogster.com) enabled students to brainstorm the overall
concept of their PSA in a multimodal form. PowerPoint and Google Slides
(https://www.google.com/slides/about/) allowed students to create a photo-essay of their
argument, with the claim and warrant typically established by combining text and visual images
for evidence.
We discussed with Ms. Malone how the students would write conventional text-based
arguments on each of their topics in some form, potentially using Google Docs
Page 12 of 49
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jlr
Journal of Literacy Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
INTEGRATING MULTIMODAL 13
(https://www.google.com/docs/about/) to bridge conventional and multimodal approaches to
developing arguments. The original intent was students would decide how much of their
conventional texts to include in the multimodal design of their final project, constructed using a
Google Site. However, Ms. Malone eventually decided to require the students to write a
conventional outline and five-page essay in addition to the multimodal aspects of the project, the
significance of which we discuss in more detail in the results section. The intent was also that
students would present these sites to their classmates and share them on Ms. Malone’s school
website page.
To instantiate process writing, Ms. Malone, at times with our support, conducted mini
lessons about either a digital tool, a multiliteracies element of design, an element of argument,
and so forth. She began the intervention by introducing, defining, and providing examples of the
elements of argument in models of writing. She also taught concepts of argument in relation to
multimodality. For example, students analyzed advertisements and public service
announcements for how they conveyed arguments using the conventional elements of argument
but also multimodal elements (e.g., moving or still images, words, music, sound effects, and how
those elements related to one another). At several points, students discussed how multimodal
elements could be used in their arguments.
These mini lessons were followed by extended time for recursive writing and revision.
Students received feedback while constructing their multimodal arguments often provided as Ms.
Malone, and the researchers as participant observers, circulated around the room monitoring
students’ work and progress. See Table 1 (in supplementary archive—link provided by SAGE).
for a weekly description of how the essential components of the intervention were enacted in the
classroom. Each week members of the research team met with Ms. Malone to debrief and plan
Page 13 of 49
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jlr
Journal of Literacy Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
INTEGRATING MULTIMODAL 14
for subsequent instruction ensuring that the intervention’s essential components were included.
Data Collection and Analysis
Data collection and analysis occurred in phases consistent with frameworks guiding
formative experiments (Reinking & Bradley, 2008). We interviewed Ms. Malone and three
administrative staff to gain understanding of the instructional setting of the school. To establish
a baseline of students’ ability to construct conventional arguments before the intervention, we
asked them to write arguments in response to several prompts adapted from draft assessments
developed by Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (2013; see also Hess, 2011).
We selected that assessment because the school was likely to adopt it later as a formal
assessment, which was supported by our interview data. Thus, it was an appropriately authentic
and realistic indicator of whether constructing multimodal arguments transferred to writing
conventional arguments (see Matthewman et al., 2004). This assessment is consistent with
Siegel’s (2012) argument that instruction in multimodal forms of literacy must confront the
reality that educational environments are rife with standardized assessments of conventional
literacy.
One prompt asked students to write a letter to their local legislature arguing for or against
legislation on biodiesel production. A parallel assessment using a different prompt was
conducted immediately after the intervention. A team of trained teachers who taught adolescent
writing used a rubric adapted from Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (2012) to score
students’ pre- and post-intervention arguments written in response to these prompts.
Data during the intervention phase included formal interviews (conducted both before
and after the intervention) and informal weekly interviews with Ms. Malone, 22 interviews with
students, 20 field notes during weekly classroom observations of instruction, student reflections
Page 14 of 49
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jlr
Journal of Literacy Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
INTEGRATING MULTIMODAL 15
(pre- and post- intervention) and artifacts, such as the students’ Google Sites. The extent to
which the instructional environment was evolving was considered in comparison to Ms.
Malone’s description of her previous instruction aimed at developing conventional arguments.
We also noted outcomes related to planned modifications and preliminary conjectures about
emerging pedagogical theories.
The qualitative data were coded and analyzed using elements of grounded theory and
constant comparison (Charmaz, 2014; Glaser, 1965) within the framework of formative
experiments (Reinking & Bradley, 2008). We discussed emerging codes in weekly research
briefings, gathered more data when necessary, and further developed coding during the
retrospective analysis of all our data. After the intervention, we conducted a retrospective
analysis (Gravemeijer & Cobb, 2006) aimed at deducing pedagogical assertions (or design
principles; see McKenney & Reeves, 2012) as the basis for developing an emerging pedagogical
theory.
Following Charmaz’s (2014) recommendations, for the retrospective analysis we first
went line by line through our raw data forming initial codes describing actions and events.
These were also informed by codes that had previously emerged during the intervention. We
coded data independently to establish first-level initial codes. Then, we shared with one another
this first-level coding and did an initial round of check-coding on the data to establish agreed
upon initial codes (Miles & Huberman, 1994). We then coded the qualitative data independently
again and repeated check-coding on a sample of student interviews until full inter-rater
agreement was reached as a reliability check of the initial coding (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
Table 2 (in supplementary archive—link provided by SAGE) shows representative examples of
Page 15 of 49
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jlr
Journal of Literacy Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
INTEGRATING MULTIMODAL 16
data that led from initial codes to focused codes (see also Figure 1 in supplementary archive—
link provided by SAGE).
To move from initial to focused codes, we organized the initial codes by frequency and
significance, organizing them into emerging conceptual categories. Finally, from the focused
codes, we formed theoretical codes leading to several pedagogical assertions. These theoretical
codes emerged from the relationships between focused codes in combination with other data,
such as student artifacts and the quantitative data. Our intent was to develop pedagogical
assertions that would inform, in the short term, modifications of the intervention, and to develop
local pedagogical theory in the long term (Cobb, Confrey, diSessa, Lehrer, & Schauble, 2003).
Teacher and student interviews as well as field notes were analyzed using emerging
codes; however, the student reflections and artifacts were coded for a priori questions.
Specifically, the students were asked at the beginning and end of the study about the differences
between conventional and digital arguments, and these responses were coded for evidence of
changes in their views or understandings. In addition, the Google Sites were coded for the extent
students included elements of argument.
Results
We organize results first by addressing the enhancing and inhibiting factors and
modifications made during the intervention. We also discuss unanticipated outcomes that
emerged due to the intervention. Then, we report the results of our retrospective analysis
addressing what overall progress was made toward accomplishing the pedagogical goal and what
modifications to the intervention the results suggest for future iterations. See Figure 1 (in
supplementary archive—link provided by SAGE) for a summary of the results reported in the
subsequent sections.
Page 16 of 49
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jlr
Journal of Literacy Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
INTEGRATING MULTIMODAL 17
Enhancing and Inhibiting Factors Affecting Modifications
In this section we highlight one enhancing and two inhibiting factors that notably
influenced the intervention and formative modifications: (a) Ms. Malone’s commitment to
process writing; (b) external pressures related to covering the curriculum and preparing students
for assessments, which inhibited her comfort with and flexibility in implementing the
intervention; and (c) students’ lack of relevant experience.
Commitment to process writing. A process approach to writing was an essential
component of the intervention, and Ms. Malone’s commitment to that approach was noted in our
initial codes as a positive influence on the success of the intervention and its contribution to
achieving the pedagogical goal. Specifically, Ms. Malone’s commitment to process writing
translated into a sustained investment in the intervention accompanied by a willingness to devote
time and effort to integrating it into her instruction. That commitment seemed to enhance her
willingness to accommodate modifications and her inclination to persevere in the face of
obstacles. Her commitment to that approach seemed unwavering. For example, when asked
how central process writing was to her investment in the intervention, Ms. Malone stated, “I
don’t know how to teach writing any other way.”
Further, a process approach provided an instructional space to allow students to
experiment with new multimodal forms of writing in general and specifically enabled new ways
of formulating arguments online. For instance, although Ms. Malone noted that this intervention
“was a lot more to juggle” than her conventional teaching of argument (interview), a process
approach accommodated her options to mix direct instruction, teacher-student conferencing, and
peer-to-peer conferencing. Data from our observations noted how it allowed her to individualize
instruction and address multiple variables of the intervention simultaneously. Students could
Page 17 of 49
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jlr
Journal of Literacy Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
INTEGRATING MULTIMODAL 18
work at their own pace without pressure to be at the same point in developing their arguments.
That flexibility meant, too, that students were amenable to and comfortable with the individual
help from Ms. Malone, as well as to collaborative peer critique and feedback.
Similarly, a process approach accommodated introductory mini lessons focused on some
aspect of multimodal arguments and the tools employed to develop them. It also provided an
opportunity for group sharing, which worked well as a prelude to individual and small-group
work. Likewise, it was an opportune time to discuss differences between developing
conventional written arguments and new multimodal arguments.
A commitment to process writing meant that the intervention meshed well with Ms.
Malone’s established perspectives and practices, and it seemed to provide a bedrock of
familiarity that enabled more comfort in experimenting with new forms and ideas. It also
inspired more flexibility in her schedule. Specifically, she decided to extend by one week the
time allotted for completing the unit on multimodal arguments, allowing her more time for
explicit instruction and for her students to refine and present their final products.
External pressures. Several inhibiting factors in our initial codes clustered under a
focused code that we termed external pressures (see Figure 1 in supplementary archive—link
provided by SAGE). These factors acted as a counterweight to the facilitative contribution of her
commitment to process writing, thus lessening her tolerance for assimilating the intervention into
her instruction. These factors became evident early in the intervention and led us to suggest
moving the intervention from one of her Advanced Placement (AP) classes for seniors, which
was originally selected for the project, to her junior-level college preparatory classes. Data
leading to that modification emerged early in the project during our joint planning meetings,
when Ms. Malone mentioned high stakes testing and a concern that her students would be taking
Page 18 of 49
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jlr
Journal of Literacy Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
INTEGRATING MULTIMODAL 19
the AP exam later in the academic year. She explained in an interview the pressure she felt to
cover the curricular material necessary to prepare her students for the exam: I’ve “always wanted
to do a multimodal project, but it is a matter of time [taken away from such preparation].”
During the initial days of the intervention, our field notes recorded a sense of her unease
about the time and effort the intervention required, particularly as it replaced literature
discussions and standards that would specifically be addressed on the AP exam. For example,
we recorded her comment: “. . . [there is] so much to talk about. I have to condense my lesson to
half a period.” Her discomfort became more apparent, which led us to suggest switching
classes—a suggestion that was greeted with perceptible relief that she would now have more
time and flexibility in implementing the intervention.
Students’ lack of relevant experience. Our data consistently revealed that students’
inexperience with (a) extended writing (e.g., initial codes labeled experience writing in other
environments and most difficult item of project) and (b) relevant digital tools for academic
purposes (e.g., experience with technology in other environments and most difficult item of
project) inhibited the intervention’s effectiveness and appeal toward accomplishing its
pedagogical goal. That lack of experience inhibited the intervention’s integration into Ms.
Malone’s instruction because it required more instructional time and effort than she had
anticipated. Specifically, both these related inhibiting factors necessitated modifications allowing
for more direct instruction related to conventional writing concepts, such as citing references,
and to the use of technological tools related to designing a website. Consulting with Ms.
Malone, a decision was made to add instructional time to accommodate students’ need to acquire
the technical skills necessary to, for example, use Google Sites and to incorporate design
elements into a multimodal, digital argument.
Page 19 of 49
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jlr
Journal of Literacy Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
INTEGRATING MULTIMODAL 20
An example of the need for more conventional writing instruction, particularly
argumentative writing, was Bethany’s comment that this project was the first time she had been
asked to write an argument in high-school courses, indicating that, instead, she had mainly
written only conventional research papers. Another student, Melinda, reported most of her
academic writing was note taking, “In my other classes we do a lot of note taking, so I am
constantly taking notes.” In discussing our findings with Ms. Malone, she explained that even in
her own class, extended writing of arguments was infrequent: “We haven’t written a paper like
this in a while . . .” (interview). This explanation is consistent with Applebee and Langer (2013),
who found relatively few writing teachers ask students to write extended texts.
Students were also unfamiliar with and had few opportunities to use the technological
tools used to design multimodal arguments in this project. When asked to identify difficult
aspects of the project, students frequently cited mastering the technological tools, both the
technical operation of the tools and using the tools for design aspects. We expected some
focused instruction would be required to familiarize students with tools that most of them had
not used before, specifically Evernote, Google Sites, and Glogster EDU. However, in our field
notes we recorded several instances of students being unable to use more basic technological
skills such as downloading and uploading files and logging onto their digital accounts. We
discovered through interviews that students typically were not engaged regularly in using online
technologies in their other classes with several indicating that it was used more often in their
English classes.
Consequently, we modified the intervention to make more time to familiarize students
with the technological tools used in the project, including basic skills such as cutting and pasting.
Relevant information and skills were presented as mini lessons followed by practice directly
Page 20 of 49
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jlr
Journal of Literacy Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
INTEGRATING MULTIMODAL 21
related to the task of developing an online multimodal argument. However, our observations of
and interviews with students suggested that they found the mini lessons aimed at compensating
for their lack of relevant experience to be unwelcome additions to an already complex and
demanding project.
Unanticipated Outcomes
Our framework included gathering data pertaining to unanticipated positive or negative
outcomes (Reinking & Bradley, 2008; Reinking et al., 2013). In that regard, two themes
emerged from our data suggesting positive, unanticipated outcomes: increased engagement and
support for freedom of expression.
Engagement. Increased engagement was associated with codes related to students’
preferences for tasks related to the intervention, their willingness to repeat those tasks, and their
level of participation in completing them. For example, in an interview, Ms. Malone noted that
students were more willing to complete the digital rather than the conventional writing
assignments, which was substantiated by our observations and in student interviews. We also
noted that students’ comments consistently referred to their enjoyment of the design of a
multimodal argument rather than writing a more conventional one. When asked directly to
compare their preference for constructing multimodal or traditional written arguments, the
following student comment was typical during interviews: “I like it [the multimodal]. Yes, more
than the traditional. It is more hands on and up to date. People will look at it more, and it is
available to more people.”
However, not all students agreed. Some students cited, for example, the difficulty in
finding information online to support their multimodal arguments. Ms. Malone also observed,
“All students are really engaged. Some students may turn in websites, but not [conventional]
Page 21 of 49
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jlr
Journal of Literacy Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
INTEGRATING MULTIMODAL 22
essays because they don’t like writing.” She noted that some students who had been reluctant
writers, particularly one male student, were writing noticeably more than they had before the
intervention.
Freedom of expression. Students discussed enjoying the topic they had chosen and
being given an opportunity to choose it. Their reasons included not normally having freedom to
choose topics, addressing topics that were often not addressed in school, and expressing their
views on personally meaningful topics. They picked diverse contemporary topics that seemed to
resonate with their own life experience. For example, of the 25 Google Sites that were analyzed,
each representing an individual student’s final project, the students picked 19 different topics.
Personal relevance seemed important to this choice of topic. For example, one student focused
on domestic violence, because he knew someone who had personally experienced it. Although
choice of topic is relevant to both conventional and digital writing, the students expressed not
only an appreciation of choosing their topic, but a belief that the digital tools allowed them to
address and discuss those topics more freely.
Students expressed enthusiasm for more creativity linked to the expanded range of
possibilities offered by multimedia tools and the freedom to explore them. For instance, one
student described the creativity that the website afforded: “On a website online, you can put
pictures, and I feel more freely express yourself versus paper [is] a little more just writing.” The
design of the students’ multimodal arguments on their Google Sites illustrated their freedom to
design these sites, but it also revealed some limitations in which modes they could include.
When asked how they chose to design their websites, several students discussed colors,
presentation themes, or multimodal elements of the project they included on the site, such as
their Glogster EDU poster or their photo-essay. However, students often integrated only static,
Page 22 of 49
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jlr
Journal of Literacy Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
INTEGRATING MULTIMODAL 23
visual (mainly photos, alternate fonts and color schemes) and textual elements into their
multimodal arguments. Only a few students used hyperlinks and audio files. However, it is
possible that they were discouraged from a more expansive use of multiple modes (e.g., videos
and songs) because of the school’s filters on Internet sites and content, as well as slow access
speeds. For example, we recorded in field notes that when students tried to work with YouTube
videos, school filters blocked their access, and Ms. Malone had to manually override the filter.
Expanded concept of argument. Our data suggested students expanded their
conception of argument and how to construct one. Further, they exhibited a greater awareness
that constructing arguments is more than presenting factual information. As Cathy stated in an
interview, “I feel like it is different. We did argument stuff in middle school, but this is a
different level of argument. Last year all I had to write about was why I like it and why others
don’t. Now I have to give reasons and evidence and all that.” They indicated awareness that
arguments are nuanced and how to incorporate that nuance into the development of their
multimodal constructions. They also exhibited a greater awareness that evidence is needed to
support arguments and to address counterarguments or the multiple sides of an argument. For
example, in our observations we noted Ms. Malone’s praise of a student whose writing she had
previously had trouble understanding: “This is the best work I have ever seen him do” (field
notes). Some students also began to acknowledge multiple positions related to an argument. For
example, even academically high achieving students such as Rachel described that although she
knew of two different opinions related to the topic of her argument, she “didn’t realize just how
many opinions were out there” (student interview). Melinda noted, “I didn’t know so many
things could be argued over and have a valid point…” (student interview).
Page 23 of 49
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jlr
Journal of Literacy Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
INTEGRATING MULTIMODAL 24
We also found evidence that the students extended their conceptions of constructing
arguments to include multimodal elements beyond a linguistic mode. Student interview data and
the student reflections supported that finding. For example, in our interview data students made
statements such as “[writing an argument] doesn’t have to be your traditional five paragraph
essay” and “[I now have] a different perspective of how to communicate with people.”
We also coded and compared students’ responses on the baseline student reflections
before the intervention to similar reflections after the intervention. We were interested in
determining if they identified differences between conventional and digital forms of writing
before and after the intervention. Their initial responses suggested that they were aware of a
difference between digital and conventional arguments. Specifically, they cited differences in
audience (more public access), ease of writing (in favor of digital arguments), and helpful
technological tools (e.g., automatic spell checking). However, after the intervention students
more often cited the multimodal dimensions of constructing digital arguments, specifically the
capability of incorporating audiovisual elements into the development of an argument. Thus,
although students were aware of differences between digital and conventional arguments prior to
the intervention, it was only after the intervention that they considered the multimodality of
digital writing.
Mixed Progress Toward the Goal
Despite an expanded awareness of the elements of arguments and an understanding of
how they might be developed in a multimodal frame, there was little evidence that students were
transferring that understanding to writing conventional arguments; thus, there was mixed
progress toward the goal of improving conventional and digital, multimodal arguments. We
reached that conclusion in our retrospective analysis based on the students’ responses to
Page 24 of 49
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jlr
Journal of Literacy Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
INTEGRATING MULTIMODAL 25
interview questions, analysis of the students’ Google Sites, and a quantitative comparison of
students’ scores on writing a conventional argument before and after the intervention.
In interviews, students expressed a belief that their learning of multimodal arguments
would benefit their conventional argument writing. For example, during interviews, eight
students were asked, “Do you think creating multimodal arguments online will help in any way
your ability to write conventional arguments?” All of the students replied that they thought this
multimodal argument would help their conventional arguments to some extent, although one
student thought it would not help on standardized tests because such tests did not allow students
the necessary freedom of creativity.
Figure 2 shows a typical screen shot from students’ multimodal arguments framed as a
PSA that we analyzed to determine the extent to which students were including fundamental
elements of argumentative writing. It is representative in that it contains a claim (the legitimacy
of same-sex marriage) that incorporates pictures, symbols, and the use of color to support that
claim. In analyzing the students’ Google Sites, we observed that the students could make claims
and provide evidence for these claims in a multimodal design although warrants were infrequent
or only implicit.
Page 25 of 49
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jlr
Journal of Literacy Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
INTEGRATING MULTIMODAL 26
Figure 2. Student example of multimodal argument.
Despite students’ expressed belief that their multimodal arguments would transfer to
writing more conventional arguments, and despite that their Google Sites included claims and
evidence, we found no quantitative evidence of transfer when comparing their initial and post-
intervention scores of responses to a prompt asking them to write a conventional argument.
Table 3 (in supplementary archive—link provided by SAGE) provides numerical values for this
comparison. There were no statistically significant differences between scores across the
categories on the rubric before and after the intervention except that students’ written arguments
were assessed to provide less evidence after the intervention. In addition, the median of the
Page 26 of 49
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jlr
Journal of Literacy Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
INTEGRATING MULTIMODAL 27
difference between prompt one and two scores decreased for all categories other than
organization, which remained the same; however, change was non-significant for all categories
except for evidence. Those findings are at odds with our analysis of students’ multimodal
products in which they acknowledged claims and evidence, but also supports the finding that
whatever awareness and skills were acquired in their construction of multimodal arguments did
not readily transfer to writing conventional arguments.
Future Modifications
Our retrospective analysis suggested that Ms. Malone was conflicted about her
commitment to engaging students in constructing multimodal arguments with a sense that doing
so might interfere with an obligation to help students write conventionally written arguments.
This sentiment was seen in her need to assign a conventional outline and essay in addition to the
planning and drafting students were already doing digitally. For example, she stated in an
interview:
I guess I need to ask myself if the goal for this [project] is the writing. Maybe I’m
trying to take a traditional assignment and force it into something new. Yeah, I do think
some text was an important piece of the project.
This response exemplifies Ms. Malone’s struggle to blend conventional and multimodal
arguments in part because of her uncertainty concerning what academic skills were being
developed in the multimodal arguments. Her struggle to assimilate both views into a compatible
whole is a theme that has emerged consistently in the literature arguing the value of multimodal
composing (cf., Adami, 2011; Skaar, 2009).
Despite this apparent conflict between conventional and multiliteracies, Ms. Malone did
acknowledge the value of including multiliteracies for argument learning, and she did not waver
Page 27 of 49
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jlr
Journal of Literacy Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
INTEGRATING MULTIMODAL 28
from that commitment. When asked if her students may have understood argument better if she
had done a more conventional text-based paper, she replied, “No, not at all, this made their
research more tangible; they could see it, and it made them think about argument in a different
way.”
Similarly, our retrospective analysis revealed when writing conventional and multimodal
arguments were considered separate instructional activities, the instruction was inefficient and
not well received by students. For example, in a student interview, Rachel expressed her concern
that she already communicated her argument in the digital modes and that the conventional paper
was unnecessary, thus acknowledging a perceived redundancy:
With the paper they are just going back and writing the same things they have already
done with the Glogster EDU and photo essay…you could say what you needed to in the
Glogster EDU, the photo essay, and everything else we are doing. (student interview)
Thus, the students viewed treating conventional and digital, multimodal arguments as
separate entities as an inefficient use of their time and energies. It may be more beneficial in
future iterations to have students apply elements of arguments developed in their multimodal
presentations to a parallel, or even different, topic, developed as a conventional written
argument. Further, the activities might be drawn closer together, perhaps by engaging them in a
discussion of the similarities and differences in their parallel development.
Discussion
This formative experiment provides insights into how an instructional intervention that
engages students in constructing multimodal arguments in two high-school English classes can
be implemented to enhance the quality of their argumentative writing. We found evidence that
the intervention contributed to achieving that goal, at least in relation to students’ construction of
Page 28 of 49
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jlr
Journal of Literacy Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
INTEGRATING MULTIMODAL 29
multimodal arguments, and in raising their awareness of the elements of good
arguments. However, there was little evidence that constructing multimodal arguments
transferred to their writing of conventional arguments. Nonetheless, students expressed a belief
that their efforts to construct multimodal arguments would help them write better conventional
written arguments. There was also evidence that most students, as well as their teacher, found
the intervention to be appealing and motivational. Those positive outcomes were tempered,
however, by concerns about the demands it placed on instructional time relative to addressing
existing curricular goals, in the case of the teacher, and to engaging in an extended all-
encompassing, and occasionally frustrating activity, in the case of the students.
This formative experiment also suggests several pedagogical assertions, drawn
specifically from our retrospective analysis, that may lay a foundation for an emerging
pedagogical theory related to integrating multimedia arguments into conventional high-school
writing instruction. These assertions may be useful to practitioners, and those who work with
them, in similar instructional environments, who wish to integrate multimodal writing into
instruction. Thus, this study offers findings that address what Messick (1992) referred to as
consequential validity and contributes to what Firestone (1993) termed case-to-case
generalization.
Assertion: Allowing students to select an argument that is personally meaningful
enhances the intervention implementation and achieving its goal. Framing the intervention as
creating a public service announcement of students’ choice was a design decision made during
joint planning with Ms. Malone before the intervention was implemented. It was not an essential
component of the intervention. Yet, that decision had an unanticipated positive influence on
Page 29 of 49
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jlr
Journal of Literacy Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
INTEGRATING MULTIMODAL 30
outcomes. Specifically, it increased students’ engagement in constructing multimodal arguments
and the activities associated with developing them.
This assertion is consistent with Newell et al. (2011) who suggested the more students
have an opportunity to invoke change through their writing, the more engaged they become. It
also supports their call for further research in this area. Further, it is consistent with Applebee
and Langer (2013) who observed the negative effects of formulaic writing associated with
assigned inquiry and who recommended that writing teachers avail students the opportunity to
pursue their own topics and inquiry as a prelude to writing. A public service announcement also
seemed well matched to students’ concept of digital tools as existing in a more public, social
space and providing access to a more authentic audience. Nonetheless, instantiating such choice
and using multimodal digital tools may be difficult, especially in an era of accountability
centered in high-stakes testing (Siegel, 2012).
Assertion: A teacher's concern that conventional writing is being neglected inhibits the
intervention and achievement of its goal. High-school English teachers, like Ms. Malone, may
feel understandable discomfort when implementing instruction related to multimodal forms of
writing. The root of that discomfort is also understandable and confirmed by our data grouped
under the focused code external pressures. Those pressures were centered in the responsibility
Ms. Malone felt to teach established curricular standards grounded in conventional writing and
for which her students would be held accountable on standardized tests. Her sensitivity to that
responsibility persisted in spite of, and set up a palpable tension with, her genuine commitment
to engaging her students with multimodal forms of writing in general and multimodal arguments
in particular.
Page 30 of 49
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jlr
Journal of Literacy Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
INTEGRATING MULTIMODAL 31
This assertion suggests caution in accommodating multimodal forms of writing into high-
school English instruction in contexts where a commitment to or concern about the curricular
standards centered in conventional writing (e.g., Council of Chief State School Officers & the
National Governors Association Center [CCSSO & NGAC], 2010) is particularly strong. Future
iterations of this and similar interventions may need to consider specific design features that
address concerns associated with high-stakes assessments. In that sense our findings are
consistent with previous research. Many teachers share Ms. Malone’s commitment to integrating
new digital forms of literacy into their instruction, but there are pressures and tensions that create
obstacles to instantiate that commitment in their teaching (Hutchison & Reinking, 2011; Purcell
et al., 2013; Siegel, 2012). Thus, the findings of this study support, for example, Moje’s (2009)
call to investigate “the delineation among new, old, and multiple literacies” (p. 351). Further, for
teachers, incorporating multimodality into conventional classroom instruction entails new
knowledge, for, in, and of practice, as suggested by Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999). In other
words, teachers may need not only knowledge of the rationale for multiliteracies and its practical
application in classrooms, but also multiple opportunities to interrogate such knowledge in the
practice of their own classrooms before their pedagogy may be expected to change.
Assertion: An investment in the process approach to teaching writing enhances the
intervention and the accomplishment of its goal. Ms. Malone’s investment in a process approach
to writing figured prominently in our data as a factor that enhanced the intervention. On one
hand, it enhanced the intervention as a practical matter, creating space for students to contend
with the new elements and affordances of constructing multimodal arguments. On the other
hand, it was also well matched to Ms. Malone’s previous instruction and created an anchor in the
familiar (e.g., mini-lessons, conferencing, and evolving drafts).
Page 31 of 49
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jlr
Journal of Literacy Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
INTEGRATING MULTIMODAL 32
Although process writing, as an overall instructional frame, was an enhancing factor, we
found evidence that it could be carried too far. Trying to overlay specific approaches to writing
conventional texts over the construction of multimodal arguments was not effective, efficient, or
appealing. Students were not only less engaged with Ms. Malone’s requirement that they carry
out a conventional writing assignment with their multimodal constructions, but also they found
that approach confusing, redundant, and unnecessary, particularly because the activities were
decidedly disjointed, conceptually and instructionally. That requirement clearly reflected the
tension Ms. Malone felt between her responsibility to address standards and goals related to
conventional writing and her desire to expand her attention to multimodal forms. Nonetheless, it
is encouraging that the common commitment many writing teachers have to a process approach
to writing seems to enhance efforts to incorporate multimodal writing into their instruction, and
it may represent a firm foundation for integrating multimodal writing into a conventional
curriculum. However, it might be more appropriate to use a process approach as a general frame
and to avoid injecting conventional writing activities and strategies into that frame when the
focus is on creating multimodal texts. However, doing so risks exacerbating what seems to be a
lack of explicit transfer of writing multimodal arguments to writing conventional arguments,
which leads to the following assertion.
Assertion: Explicitly comparing and contrasting the elements of good arguments in
conventional and multimodal texts may be necessary. Relevant discussions and activities
consistent with this assertion occurred during the intervention, but they focused on the
affordances and elements of each medium rather than a systematic comparison of the two.
However, consistently in our focused codes labeled students’ lack of experience and expanded
conception of argument, we noted students’ inexperience with both conventional and multimodal
Page 32 of 49
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jlr
Journal of Literacy Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
INTEGRATING MULTIMODAL 33
arguments. Thus, these students may have benefitted from more explicit discussion comparing
the two mediums. The lack of statistically significant improvement on the writing prompt before
and after the intervention might be traced to this shortcoming.
However, drawing attention to the unique affordances, skills, strategies, and dispositions
associated with multimodal writing may not be enough. Our results suggest not only the
challenges of developing useful frames for constructing multimodal arguments, they reinforce
the challenges of developing and familiarizing students with frames they might internalize and
implement.
Assertion: A lack of basic technological skills and/or relevant experience in conventional
writing influence the effectiveness and appeal of the intervention. Teachers may need to
consider the scope of multimodal projects, keeping in mind that students may need to
simultaneously exercise fundamental skills in both conventional literacies and multiliteracies. In
interviews with students, it became clear that they had little experience with multimodal
composing in school. In addition, we had not anticipated how little argumentative writing, and
extended writing overall, these students had been engaged within their high-school experience.
This finding illustrates the suggestion that despite decades of research on writing, little is known
about “contemporary writing classroom practices in high schools in the United States” (Kiuhara,
Graham, & Hawken, 2009, p. 136). However, this study begins to fill that gap, providing needed
research into high-school students’ conventional and digital writing.
Because on multiple occasions these students also described their writing experience as
limited to note-taking and responding to teacher directed prompts, students were facing a perhaps
unreasonable challenge in this project. They had to simultaneously learn principles of
conventional arguments, the practice of extended writing, and both the technical aspects and
Page 33 of 49
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jlr
Journal of Literacy Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
INTEGRATING MULTIMODAL 34
elements of design afforded by the digital tools used. To address this challenge, we had to
extend the project to account for additional instruction and time for students to implement these
skills. We introduced multiple components and new tasks in one encompassing, although
engaging, project. We discovered our unfounded assumptions about their prior writing in school,
specifically argumentative writing, and about their technological savvy in using digital tools in
service of an academic task. Students’ lack of technological skills confronts Prensky’s (2001)
concept of digital natives, at least in relation to academic uses of digital tools, and aligns with
Bennett, Maton, and Kervin’s (2008) suggestion that “there is as much variation within the
digital native generation as between the generations” (emphasis in original, p. 779).
The students were able to create a Glogster EDU poster, a photo-essay, and a
conventional argument and were able to use those elements to design a culminating project on
their Google Site to convey a public service announcement. However, the students may have
been better served if these components had been broken into smaller projects, on different topics,
giving them more opportunity to acquire and to practice essentially new fundamental skills. That
approach may have been more effective and appealing. It also would have provided time to
focus instruction without extending an already complex, multivariable project. And, it might
have allowed for an opportunity to more closely integrate the development of conventionally
written and the creative design of newer multimodal arguments.
Conclusion
The stated intervention was not a complete success, nor was it a complete failure, in
achieving it pedagogical goal. Students learned that arguments could be expressed multimodally
and were engaged in such a process. Yet, there is no evidence that this learning increased their
conventional argumentative writing skills. We believe the present study furthers pedagogical
Page 34 of 49
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jlr
Journal of Literacy Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
INTEGRATING MULTIMODAL 35
understanding regardless of, and to some extent because of, its lack of complete success. It
provides guidance for further iterations of the intervention in other contexts. We hope that it will
also be useful to teachers, like Ms. Malone, who understand the importance of incorporating 21st
century literacy into their practice and who have good intentions in modifying their curriculum
and instruction accordingly. Besides identifying some of the key elements of realizing those
intentions, the present study reveals that they are taking on a complex and difficult task,
especially in terms of satisfying a dual commitment to conventional writing and writing in a
multimodal domain with digital tools.
Page 35 of 49
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jlr
Journal of Literacy Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
INTEGRATING MULTIMODAL 36
References
Adami, E. (2011). In defence of multimodal re‐signification: A response to Håvard Skaar's ‘In
defence of writing’. Literacy, 45(1), 44-50. doi:10.1111/j.1741-4369.2010.00567.x
Ajayi, L. (2009). English as a second language learners' exploration of multimodal texts in a
junior high school. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(7), 585-595.
doi:10.1598/JAAL.52.7.4
Alvermann, D. E. (2008). Why bother theorizing adolescents' online literacies for classroom
practice and research? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(1), 8-19.
doi:10.1598/JAAL.52.1.2
Andrews, R. (1997). Reconceiving argument. Educational Review, 49(3), 259-269.
doi:10.1080/0013191970490305
Applebee, A. N., & Langer, J. A. (2013). Writing instruction that works: Proven methods for
middle and high school classrooms. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The digital natives debate: A critical review of the
evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775-786.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00793.x
Bezemer, J., & Kress, G. (2008). Writing in multimodal texts a social semiotic account of
designs for learning. Written Communication, 25(2), 166-195.
doi:10.1177/0741088307313177
Birdsell & Groarke. (2004). Toward a theory of visual argument. In Handa, C. (2004). Visual
rhetoric in a digital world: A critical sourcebook (pp. 309-320). Boston: Bedford/St.
Martins.
Page 36 of 49
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jlr
Journal of Literacy Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
INTEGRATING MULTIMODAL 37
Bowen, T., & Whithaus, C. (Eds.). (2013). “What else is possible”: Multimodal composing and
genre in the teaching of writing. In Multimodal literacies and emerging genres (pp. 1-13).
Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Bruce, D. L. (2009). Writing with visual images: Examining the video composition processes of
high school students. Research in the Teaching of English, 43(4), 426-450.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in
educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9-13.
doi:10.3102/0013189X032001009
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher
learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249-305.
doi:10.2307/1167272
Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., & Leu, D. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of research on new
literacies. Mahwaw, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cole, A.L., & Knowles, J.G. (1993). Teacher development partnership research: A focus on
methods and issues. American Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 473-495.
doi:10.2307/1163298
Colwell, J., Hunt-Barron, S., & Reinking, D. (2013). Obstacles to developing digital literacy on
the Internet in middle-school science instruction. Journal of Literacy Research, 45(3),
295-324. doi:10.1177/1086296X13493273
Page 37 of 49
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jlr
Journal of Literacy Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
INTEGRATING MULTIMODAL 38
Council of Chief State School Officers & the National Governors Association Center (CCSSO
& NGAC). (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts and literacy
in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, D.C.: National
Governors Association. Available at http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy
Demirbag, M., & Gunel, M. (2014). Integrating argument-based science inquiry with modal
representations: Impact on science achievement, argumentation, and writing skills.
Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 14(1), 386.
Dyson, A. H. (2003). "Welcome to the jam": Popular culture, school literacy, and the making of
childhoods. Harvard Educational Review, 73(3), 328.
Firestone, W. A. (1993). Alternative arguments for generalizing from data as applied to
qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 22(4), 16-23.
doi:10.3102/0013189X022004016
Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social
Problems, 12(4), 436-445.
Glesne, G. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Graham, M. S., & Benson, S. (2010). A springboard rather than a bridge: Diving into multimodal
literacy. English Journal, 100(2), 93-97.
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007a). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007b). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of
adolescents in middle and high schools. A report to Carnegie Corporation of New
York. Alliance for Excellent Education.
Page 38 of 49
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jlr
Journal of Literacy Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
INTEGRATING MULTIMODAL 39
Graham, S., & Sandmel, K. (2011). The process writing approach: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Educational Research,104(6), 396. doi:10.1080/0022-671.2010.488703
Gravemeijer, K., & Cobb, P. (2006). Design research from a learning design perspective. In J.
van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. Mckenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design
research (pp. 17-51). New York, NY: Routledge.
Harris, E. (2014, November 19). Passing rate declines by 20% as state uses new certification
exams for teachers. New York Times, p. A. 23.
Hess, K. (2011). Appendices D – F: Provided in conjunction with content specifications with
content mapping for the summative assessment of the Common Core State Standards For
English Language Arts & Literacy In History/Social Studies, Science, And Technical
Subjects. Retrieved from
http://hsd.k12.or.us/Portals/0/district/departments/teaching_and_learning/SBAC--ELA-
LiteracyContentSpecificationsAppend--sample%20items.pdf
Hillocks, G. (1986). Research on written composition: New directions for teaching. New York,
NY: National Conference on Research in English.
Hillocks, G., (2010). Teaching argument for critical thinking and writing: An
introduction. English Journal, 99(6), 24.
Hillocks, G. (2011). Preface. In Teaching Argument Writing: Supporting claims with relevant
evidence and clear reasoning (pp. xv-xxvi). Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Hinkle, D. E., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (2003). Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences.
Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Hocks, M. E. (2003). Understanding visual rhetoric in digital writing environments. College
Composition and Communication, 54(4), 629-656.
Page 39 of 49
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jlr
Journal of Literacy Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
INTEGRATING MULTIMODAL 40
Howard, T.W. (2011). Intellectual properties in multimodal, 21st-Century composition
classrooms. In Danielle Nicole Devoss and Martine Courant Rife(Eds.), Copy(write):
Intellectual property in the writing classroom (pp. 107-129). The WAC Clearinghouse
and Parlor Press.
Hutchison, A., & Reinking, D. (2010). A national survey of barriers to integrating information
and communication technologies into literacy instruction. In R. Jimenez, V. Risko, M.
Hundley, & D. Rowe (Eds.), Fifty-Ninth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference
(pp. 230-243). National Reading Conference. Milwaukee, WI.
Hutchison, A., & Reinking, D. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of integrating information and
communication technologies into literacy instruction: A national survey in the United
States. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(4), 312-333.
International Reading Association (IRA). (2009). New literacies and 21st century technologies
(Position statement). Newark, DE: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.reading.org/Libraries/position-statements-and-
resolutions/ps1067_NewLiteracies21stCentury.pdf
Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robison, A., & Weigel, M. (2006). Confronting the
Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. White Paper.
MacArthur Foundation.
Jewitt, C., & Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality, literacy, and school English. In Wyse, D.,
Andrews, R., & Hoffman, J. (Eds.). The Routledge International handbook of English,
language, and literacy teaching (pp. 342-353). New York, NY: Routledge.
Page 40 of 49
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jlr
Journal of Literacy Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
INTEGRATING MULTIMODAL 41
Jocius, R. (2013). Exploring adolescents’ multimodal responses to The Kite Runner:
Understanding how students use digital media for academic purposes. The Journal of
Media Literacy Education, 5(1), 310.
Johnson, L. L., & Smagorinsky, P. (2013). Writing remixed: Mapping the multimodal
composition of one preservice English Education teacher. In K. Pytash & R. Ferdig
(Eds.), Exploring multimodal composition and digital writing (pp. 262-280). Hershey,
PA: IGI Global.
Kiuhara, S. A., Graham, S., & Hawken, L. S. (2009). Teaching writing to high school students:
A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 136-160.
doi:10.1037/a0013097
Kress, G. (2000). Design and transformation. In Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M (Eds.). Multiliteracies
(pp. 153-161). New York, NY: Routledge.
Kress, G. R. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. New York, NY: Routledge.
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality. New York, NY: Routledge.
Lenhart, A., Arafeh, S., Smith, A, & MacGill, A. (2008). Writing, technology, and teens. Pew
Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2008/Writing-Technology-and-Teens/01-Summary-
of-Findings.aspx
Lunsford, K. J. (2002). Contextualizing Toulmin's model in the writing classroom: A case study.
Written Communication, 19(1), 109-174. doi:10.1177/074108830201900105
Matthewman, S., Blight, A., & Davies, C. (2004). What does multimodality mean for English?
Creative tensions in teaching new texts and new literacies. Education, Communication &
Information, 4(1), 153-176. doi:10.1080/1463631042000210944
Page 41 of 49
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jlr
Journal of Literacy Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
INTEGRATING MULTIMODAL 42
McDermott, M. A., & Hand, B. (2013). The impact of embedding multiple modes of
representation within writing tasks on high school students’ chemistry understanding.
Instructional Science, 41(1), 217-246. doi:10.1007/s11251-012-9225-6
McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. (2012). Educational Design Research. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Messick, S. (1992). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance
assessments. Educational Researcher, 23(2), 13-23. doi:10.2307/1176219
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Early steps in analysis. In Qualitative data analysis:
An expanded sourcebook (pp. 50-89). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miller, S. M. (2013). A research metasynthesis on digital video composing in classrooms: An
evidence-based framework toward a pedagogy for embodied learning. Journal of
Literacy Research, 45(4), 386-430. doi:10.1177/1086296X13504867
Mills, K. A. (2010). Shrek meets Vygotsky: Rethinking adolescents' multimodal literacy
practices in schools. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(1), 35-45.
Moje, E. B. (2009). Standpoints: A call for new research on new and multi-literacies. Research
in the Teaching of English, 348-362.
National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE). (2005). NCTE position statement on
multimodal literacies. Retrieved from ncte.org/positions/statements/multimodalliteracies
National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE). (2008). The NCTE definition of 21st century
literacies (Position statement). Retrieved from
http://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/21stcentdefinition
New London Group (NLG). (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures.
Harvard Education Review, 66(1): 60-92.
Page 42 of 49
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jlr
Journal of Literacy Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
INTEGRATING MULTIMODAL 43
Newell, G. E., Beach, R., Smith, J., & VanDerHeide, J. (2011). Teaching and learning
argumentative reading and writing: A review of research. Reading Research Quarterly,
46(3), 273-304.
Pang, S., Reinking, D., Hutchison, A., Ramey, D. (2015). South Korean teachers’ perceptions of
integrating information and communication technologies into literacy instruction.
Education Research International, 2015, 1-13. doi:10.1155/2015/783593
Peers, I. (1996). Statistical analysis for education and psychology researchers. London, Farmer
Press.
Peterson, S. S., & McClay, J. K. (2012). Assumptions and practices in using digital technologies
to teach writing in middle‐level classrooms across Canada. Literacy, 46(3), 140-146.
doi:10.1111/j.1741-4369.2012.00665.x
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
doi:10.1108/10748120110424816
Pressley, M., Graham, S., & Harris, K. (2006). The state of educational intervention research as
seen through the lens of literacy intervention. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
76(1), 1-19. doi:10.1348/000709905X66035
Pritchard, R. J., & Honeycutt, R. L. (2006). The process approach to writing instruction:
Examining its effectiveness. C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald. Handbook of
writing research (pp. 275-290). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Purcell, K., Heaps, A., Buchanan, J., & Friedrich, L. (2013). How teachers are using technology
at home and in their classrooms. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center’s Internet &
American Life Project.
Page 43 of 49
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jlr
Journal of Literacy Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
INTEGRATING MULTIMODAL 44
Reinking, D., & Bradley, B. A. (2008). On formative and design experiments: Approaches to
language and literacy research. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Reinking, D., Colwell, J., & Ramey, D. (2013). A framework for conceptualizing, planning,
conducting, and reporting a formative experiment. Study group presented at the 2013
Literacy Research Association (LRA) Conference, Dallas, TX.
Rowsell, J., & Decoste, E. (2012). (Re) designing writing in English class: A multimodal
approach to teaching writing. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 7(3), 246-260.
doi:10.1080/1554480X.2012.685226
Sewell, W. C., & Denton, S. (2011). Multimodal literacies in the secondary English classroom.
English Journal, 100(5), 61-65.
Siegel, M. (2012). New times for multimodality? Confronting the accountability culture. Journal
of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(8), 671-680. doi:10.1002/JAAL.00082
Skaar, H. (2009). In defence of writing: a social semiotic perspective on digital media, literacy
and learning. Literacy, 43(1), 36-42.
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium. (2012). English language arts rubrics. Measured
Progress ETS Collaborative.
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium. (2013). Practice test scoring guide grade 11
performance task. American Institutes for Research. Retrieved from
http://sbac.portal.airast.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Grade11ELAPT.pdf
Smith, M. W., Wilhelm, J., & Fredricksen, J. (2012). Oh yeah?! Putting argument to work both
in school and out. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Toulmin, S. E. (1958/2003). The uses of argument. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Page 44 of 49
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jlr
Journal of Literacy Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
INTEGRATING MULTIMODAL 45
Vasudevan, L., Schultz, K., & Bateman, J. (2010). Rethinking composing in a digital age:
Authoring literate identities through multimodal storytelling. Written Communication,
27(4), 442-468. doi:10.1177/0741088310378217
Walsh, M. (2008). Worlds have collided and modes have merged: classroom evidence of
changed literacy practices. Literacy, 42(2), 101-108. doi:10.1111/j.1741-
4369.2008.00495.x
Whithaus, C. (2012). Claim-evidence structures in environmental science writing: Modifying
Toulmin's model to account for multimodal arguments. Technical Communication
Quarterly, 21(2), 105. doi:10.1080/10572252.2012.641431
Page 45 of 49
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jlr
Journal of Literacy Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
Table 1
Pedagogical Implementation of Essential Components
Week of
Intervention
Class
Participating
Instruction/Learning Activities Technology Used
Week 1 AP Class Students writing prompt response and
introduction of the elements of argument
None
Week 2 AP Class Introduction of elements of multimodality and
design and examples of multimodal arguments
iPads and exploration
of websites using
multimodal
arguments
Week 3 Juniors Students writing prompt response; Students
analyzing both conventional and multimodal
aspects of argument
Glogster EDU; iPads
Week 4 Juniors Students discuss multimodality and
conventional aspects of argument and analyze
public service announcements for these
elements; Students explore social issues that
they will explore in their arguments
Multimodal argument
websites; Evernote;
iPads
Week 5 Juniors Students research social issues including
multiple modes of evidence in this research and
organize this research in their first arguments
Evernote to collect
research; Glogster
EDU to storyboard
their arguments
Week 6 Juniors Students write conventional drafts of their
arguments
None
Week 7 Juniors Students analyze photoessays online for
elements of conventional arguments and how
these are displayed via a multimodal design;
Students create photoessay with
discussion/guidance on including elements of
design, multimodality, and conventional
argument components.
PowerPoint and
Google Slides
Week 8 Juniors Students revising writing/design and
conferencing with students
Technology used as
needed (via laptops
used in class) as
students revise
various components
of arguments
Week 9-10 Juniors Students on spring break in Week 9; In Week
10, students learn about Google Sites and begin
integrating arguments (Glogster poster and
photoessay) with the design of their website;
Once students finish, they present their website
to the class
Google Sites
Week 11 Juniors Students write conventional argument prompt
response
None
Page 46 of 49
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jlr
Journal of Literacy Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
Table 2
Representative Data Examples for a Sample of Initial Codes
Representative Data Examples Sample
Initial Codes
Focused Code
“She wants to see if they can do it and…that this
was preparation for the longer, in depth writing
they would be doing in college” (field notes).
Writing Practice and
Beliefs
Commitment to
Process Writing
“Students are very active in helping one
another” (field notes).
Group work
“Some of the students will not pass, don’t have
the critical reading and writing skills” (teacher
interview).
Assessment External Pressures
“…is feeling overwhelmed by time and things
she has to do” (field notes).
Curriculum Demands
“…students claim that they do not write
arguments in other classes, so this is their main
exposure to writing arguments” (field notes).
Experience Writing
in Other
Environments
Students’ Lack of
Relevant Experience
“D says he uses computers in tech center but not
here” (student interview).
Experience with
Technology…
“It’s pretty cool. I like the website and working
with computers. It’s pretty interesting” (student
interview).
Engagement with
Technology
Engagement
“I write outside of school a little bit. I write in a
diary. I’ve been doing that since I was little…”
(student interview).
Engagement with
Writing
“I like that I got to express myself creatively
because just writing on paper we couldn’t do
that” (student interview).
Creativity Freedom of
Expression
“I picked the most controversial topic I could
because I wanted a good challenge” (student
interview).
Choice
“It helped me learn how to better write an
argumentative paper thoroughly” (student
interview).
Student Learnings Expanded
Conception of
Argument
“Students easily identified claim, evidence, and
warrant today from the poster” (field notes).
Parts of Argument
“It’s helpful because you get a visual aspect of
what it is” (student interview).
Transfer of
Knowledge
Transfer of
Knowledge
“It would have been easier to pick the paper or
the website-that’s what I think we should have
done” (student interview).
Ways to Improve
Project
Blending
Conventional and
Multiliteracies
“Like the other class, they thought the project
took too long” (field notes).
Length of Project
Page 47 of 49
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jlr
Journal of Literacy Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
Table 3
Quantitative Results of Pre- and Post-Intervention Assessments of Conventional Written
Arguments
Category Median
11
Median
2
Median of
Difference
Increase
(+)
or
Decrease
(-)2
Significance3 Min
Prompt
1
Max
Prompt
1
Min
Prompt
2
Max
Prompt
2
Focus 3.16 3.00 -.18 .428 2 4 0 4
Organization 2.57 2.53 ~.00 .670 1 4 0 4
Evidence 2.74 2.11 -.77 .015 1 4 0 4
Warrant 2.37 2.32 -.08 .834 1 4 0 4
Clarity 2.63 2.29 -.29 .219 1 4 0 4
Overall 2.88 2.40 -.12 .173 1 3.6 1 4
Note. Values are from a 5-point scale where 0 represents no evidence of the respective trait, and
4 represents clear establishment of the respective trait of argument.
1 Medians are reported, because analyses used a Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test, a
nonparametric approach due to a small sample size that cannot be assumed to have a normal
distribution (Hinkle et al., 2003).
2 The median of the difference may not be the same as the difference between medians (Peers,
1996).
3 Significant at p< .05 for the Wilcoxon Test
Page 48 of 49
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jlr
Journal of Literacy Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
For Peer Review
Figure 1. Coding of data. Focused codes are in shaded boxes, and initial codes, from which they
were derived, are the bulleted lists.
Enhancing and Inhibiting Factors Affecting Modifications
Commitment to Process Writing
•Group Work
•Independent Work
•Teaching Experience
•Writing Practice and Beliefs
•Modifications
•Enhancing Factors
External Pressures
•Assessment
•Curriculum Demands
•Modifications
•Inhibiting Factors
Students' Lack of Relevant Experience
•Experience Writing in Other Environments
•Length and Amount of Writing
•Length of Project
•Most Difficult Item of Project
•Experience with Technology in Other Environments
Unanticipated Outcomes
Engagement
•Engagement with Technology
•Engagement with Writing
•Completion of Assignments
•Dissatisfaction with Technology
•Dissatisfaction with Writing
•Least Difficult Item of Project
•Technology Experience, Application or Beliefs
•Positive Aspects of Project
Freedom of Expression
•Creativity
•Design of Website
•Choice
Mixed Progress Toward the Goal
Expanded Conception of Argument
•Student Learnings
•Parts of Arguments
•Evidence of Progress Toward Goal
Transfer of Knowledge
•Transfer of Knowledge
Possible Future Modifications
Blending Conventional and Multiliteracies
•Ways to Improve Project
•Length and Amount of Writing
•Length of Project
Page 49 of 49
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jlr
Journal of Literacy Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960